Tanker Yanker Coming Back
#11
08-19-2007, 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by Maniac
there is not much need for a SS one?
With the cost of stainless pumps and the rarity of them most companies like that have their own. Thanks for the information. Last thing I want to do is make the job more complicated. Already more that enough of that to go around. I seem to recall that at one time they were talking about pulling pumps and hoses off the trucks and requiring the plants to have their own. Shame that hasn't happened yet. Thanks again for your insight. Be careful and stay safe. 
#13
08-19-2007, 02:11 AM
Originally Posted by Maniac
they were talking about pulling pumps and hoses off the trucks
#14
08-19-2007, 02:34 AM
Originally Posted by GrayBeard
Originally Posted by Maniac
they were talking about pulling pumps and hoses off the trucks
__________________
"I love college football. It's the only time of year you can walk down the street with a girl in one arm and a blanket in the other, and nobody thinks twice about it." --Duffy Daugherty 
#15
08-19-2007, 02:41 AM
Re: Tanker Yanker Coming Back
Originally Posted by GrayBeard
Hello to Everyone,
I am in the process of getting back into the tank business. I have been on the side lines due to being called back to active duty. I spent my first few years driving company trucks and dragging a little bit of eveything until I settled on tankers. Made the jump to O/O in 95 pulling dump trailers in WV and then moving to FL dagging pnuematic tanks. I am used to being maxed out on weight with every load. Uncle Sam requested my services a short while ago, so I sold off my trucks and trailers. My time is now about up (JAN) and I am coming back. I am starting now to get everything in place and ready to go. Never liked waiting around until the last minute to get things done. With that in mind, I woud like to request the assistance of other tank drivers on this forum. First - Blackmer and Roper product pumps are the pumps to run. I can not remember the series for the Stainless Steel pumps. If someone could help me out with the series numbers I would be grateful. I want to run a 3" SS pump as you never have to worry about what they put in your tank. Also gets you loads that require SS. Second - What happened to all the flat top sleepers? Everything I see out there is either a high rise or condo. I want to stay right at 12' to the top of my stacks as chemical plants make for some very tight manuevering and they tend to get upset when you bend their racks. Finally - Not to start a big debate or cast dispersions; however I was always a Cummins and CAT man. I drove a few 92 Series Detroits and spent a few months with the 60 Series when they first came out. With fuel costs being by far the biggest expense, who is King of fuel economy these days? Thanks to all in advance for your assistance. For those in the tanker business, I look forward to meeting you down the road. Keep the rubber side down and be safe! if you can afford it, I highly recommend a hydropack. it has a pump and an air compressor, it mounts on the side of the truck, you move the lever one way for pump and the other way for air. it automatically adjusts the engine speed. highway transport uses them. if you see one of their trucks, take a look at it.
__________________
http://fredogtrucking.proboards.com
#16
08-19-2007, 03:00 AM
I don't understand this 'its up to the driver' jargon.
Yes a better driver will get better fuel mileage, BUT, the worst driver will get better fuel mileage with a nice efficient 11 litre vs the best driver driving a 15 litre. Some engines are simply more efficient at turning fuel BTU's into horsepower. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, these #'s are not available from the engine builders. It's a shame, someone in congress should make this mandatory. However, what I do know, is certain engines are more efficient then others. Which engines? The #1 in my book would be the cummins m11 #2 pre-egr volvo #3 pre-egr detroit Look at it this way, the difference between a truck that averages 6 mpg and 8 mpg is 5000 gallons/year at 120,000 miles. Say "for example" an m11 could average you with 8 mpg over a year, and a c15 could average you 6 mpg over a year. Over 10 years, if you rebuilt that m11 10 times, and that cat not even once, you'd still be money ahead with the m11. Fuel cost is *HUGE* nowadays. I advise you to make a good, informed decision.
#17
08-19-2007, 04:16 AM
Allan what you are saying makes perfect sense if both trucks are on perfectly flat terrain. You must spec the engine for the job though. A 550 cat may be loafing along on a 3% grade using a small portion of its available power to pull 70 thousand pounds while the M11 beside it is puking its guts out with the accelerator to the floor. Which engine do you think will be getting the better mileage in that situation. Don't say the M11 because it has better bsfc and smaller displacement because it isn't true. Last year I had a dedicated run, same store every day. The year before my friend did the same run. We have identical trucks except for engines. He has a detroit (12.7 series 60 470hp 1650 tq 99 model). I had a cat (14.6 liter 550hp 1850 tq 2000 model). again other than the engines our trucks were identical and weigh within 500 lbs of each other. He averaged 5.8 mpg for the year he did the account I averaged 6.3mpg. We both did the store for one complete year so we had a really good sample to work with. If you were correct about the driving style not being the difference and the engine displacement being the deciding factor he should have gotten much better mileage than me. A larger more powerful engine can definately be more efficient if you are heavy alot, run alot of high winds, or run a lot of big hills. Talking real world here not laboratory numbers.
#18
08-19-2007, 05:08 AM
Originally Posted by mike3fan
Originally Posted by GrayBeard
Originally Posted by Maniac
they were talking about pulling pumps and hoses off the trucks
When I was pulling Haz Mat, you had to go accross 460 and then down 100 (Nasty *$$ road with a smoth bore) to get around the tunnels. I was one happy driver when they opened the tunnels. I still say it was far more dangerous sending us around the tunnels rather than through them. I guess they finally figured that out and that is why the opened the tunnels p to Haz Mat.
#19
08-19-2007, 05:17 AM
Fredog said
"if you can afford it, I highly recommend a hydropack. it has a pump and an air compressor, it mounts on the side of the truck, you move the lever one way for pump and the other way for air. it automatically adjusts the engine speed. highway transport uses them. if you see one of their trucks, take a look at it." Fredog I like the sound of that setup. Probably won't like the price! I did a search and couldn't find any information on hydropack. Can you give me a little more information to help me with my search? I never liked using the trucks compressor to pressure off a load, and that was with a company truck. Never could understand why a plant couldn't supply their own air! Thanks for the information. Be careful and stay safe.
#20
08-19-2007, 05:35 AM
Originally Posted by mudpuddle
Allan what you are saying makes perfect sense if both trucks are on perfectly flat terrain. You must spec the engine for the job though. A 550 cat may be loafing along on a 3% grade using a small portion of its available power to pull 70 thousand pounds while the M11 beside it is puking its guts out with the accelerator to the floor. Which engine do you think will be getting the better mileage in that situation.
Don't say the M11 because it has better bsfc and smaller displacement because it isn't true. Last year I had a dedicated run, same store every day. The year before
my friend did the same run. We have identical trucks except for engines. He has a detroit (12.7 series 60 470hp 1650 tq 99 model). I had a cat (14.6 liter 550hp 1850 tq 2000 model). again other than the engines our trucks were identical and weigh within 500 lbs of each other. He averaged 5.8 mpg for the year he did the account I averaged 6.3mpg. We both did the store for one complete year so we had a really good sample to work with. If you were correct about the driving style not being the difference and the engine displacement being the deciding factor he should have gotten much better mileage than me. A larger more powerful engine can definately be more efficient if you are heavy alot, run alot of high winds, or run a lot of big hills. Talking real world here not laboratory numbers.
A few questions: 1) Was this off "computer" readouts or at the pump? 2) Were both trucks REALLY the same? including: -maintenance, maybe the detroit had a CAC leak? -tire pressure -brand of tires -driven the same -idled the same -trailer gap Displacement isn't the only factor. Newer engines of the same displacement aren't as efficient as the older ones. |
|
